Planning affects us all. The council’s planning policies are set out in Local Plans which are the legal starting

point in determining planning applications. Public and stakeholder engagement is an important part of the plan

making process. Involving residents, businesses, organisations, experts, infrastructure providers and town and

parish councils allows local knowledge and expertise to be gathered from a wide range of perspectives.

Dorset Council have produced a draft Local Plan containing proposals for guiding future development in the

Dorset Council area up to 2038. The plan outlines the strategy for meeting the needs of the area such as

housing, employment, and community services including schools, retail, leisure and community facilities. The

plan directs development to the most suitable locations near existing facilities and detailed policies promote

high quality development that respects and enhances the character of each area. The plan also protects

Dorset’s natural environment and contributes towards the mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

Between 18 January 2021 and 15 March 2021 you are able to comment on the proposals.

A consultation on the plan will begin on

18 January 2021 and end on 15 March 2021

How can you find out what’s in the plan?

The Dorset Council Local Plan consultation will be available on the council’s website at

www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/dorset-council-local-plan

Paper copies of the plan are available for loan from your local Dorset Council library (Covid-19 permitting)

www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/libraries-history-culture/libraries/find-your-local-library/dorset-

libraries.aspx Find out more at:

We are holding webinars throughout the consultation period on key themes within the plan. Each

webinar will last approximately 40 minutes and will consist of a short presentation followed by a

question and answer session.

dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/dorset-council-local-plan-webinars

We also have a dedicated phone line available during the consultation period

Monday to Friday 01305 252500

10am and 2pm

Town or Parish councils, organisations or community groups can attend a planning surgery during

the consultation period to discuss any queries with officers. Limited spaces are available.

Telephone 01305 252500 to reserve your slot. Tuesday to Thursday, from 10am until 2pm. If

you have any difficulty accessing information please telephone 01305 252500.

For office use only

Requester ID:

Consultee ID:

Comment ID’s:

How can I make a comment?

To comment on the proposals, please:

• Make sure you give your name and either postal or email address along with your postcode so that

your response can be considered appropriately.

• Use the official form.

• Make your comments within the consultation period to ensure they are considered.

• If you are part of a group that shares a common view, please include a list of the contact details

of each person (including names, addresses, emails, telephone numbers and signatures) along

with a completed form providing details of the named lead representative.

• Continue on separate sheets if necessary.

Please note:

• Representations cannot be treated as confidential. By completing a representation, you agree to

your name (but not your address) and comments being made available for public viewing.

• The council do not accept any responsibility for the contents of the comments submitted. We

reserve the right to remove any comments containing defamatory, abusive or malicious allegations.

You can respond:

Online

Submit your response online at the following link

www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/dorset-council-local-plan

The benefits of doing your response this way are as follows:

• less impact on the environment as we do not need to use paper or postage

• you’ll be emailed a copy of your response a confirmation once submitted

• you’ll also be able to start your response and return to it at a later date – a confirmation

email will send you a link to where you left off

• you can upload supporting information to your response

E-mail

We also accept responses emailed to us, as long as they

are completed on this form. Please send responses to

planningpolicy@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

Written responses

There are paper copies of the response form available upon request for those without internet or

computer access.

Please telephone 01305 252500 to request your copy.

Part A

Please complete one part A form

In what context are you responding?

Tick as applicable

AAgent Organisation

YY

(please specify)

Please complete your details - remember to include your name and either postal or email address to have

your response considered.

Name*

Organisation Arne Parish Council

Address line 1*

Address line 2

Address line 3

Town

Postcode*

Email address*

Clients details if applicable:

Name*

Organisation

Address line 1*

Address line 2

Address line 3

Town

Postcode*

Email address*

*essential fields

Individual

Group Representations

If your representation is on behalf of a group, ensure the lead

representative completes the contact details box above. Also, please state here

how many people support the representation.

Please tick the box if you would like to be notified of future progress and

consultation on the Dorset Council Local Plan.

Part B: General questions

Please complete one part B form for every part of the plan you wish to make

a comment on.

Which paragraph / policy / section / chapter of the plan are you referring to?

Strategy and Topics

Tick (or mark with Y) as applicable

Do you agree with the suggested approach and what it is trying to achieve?

Agree Agree subject to changes Disagree X

Do you agree with the suggested wording?

Agree Agree subject to changes Disagree X

How could the paragraph / policy / section / chapter be amended to reflect your concerns?

DEV 1: The vision for Dorset in the current DLP is subjugated to the perceived need to subscribe to the

Housing Targets provided by Central Government’s Standard Method. There is little that does not

simply follow that or seek to justify that decision. Thus the issues of how Dorset can proceed into a post

Covid, post Brexit and Climate and Ecological Emergency future are inadequately addressed.

DEV 2 and ECON 1:It gives an impression of being a collection of the old district plans drawn up before

the above priorities and ‘stitched’ together. What is needed is a rethink of the need for genuine

Sustainable Development within the county. The vision embedded in the current document does not

steer the County into a low carbon future of energy of efficient housing, ‘green economic development’,

enhanced public transport over cars, and carbon free energy generation and use.

DEV 2. The Green Belt should not be released for development unless exceptional circumstances

justify it (Paragraph 136- 137 of NPPF). If the estimate of housing need has been overestimated, such

release should not be needed.

DEV 5. We find excessive the number of houses (30,481) Dorset Council propose to build following the

Standard Method provided by Central Government. Dorset CPRE challenges that calculation as 47%

above actual need.

The plan should address and decline to accept the housing targets provided by the ‘Standard Method’

which is out of date and independent estimates suggest are grossly in excess of the actual local need.

The Government response below and the NPPF guidelines indicate how this can be done:

“Within the current planning system the standard method does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but

instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after

consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the Green Belt, and the land that

is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is

made. It does not override other planning policies, including the protections set out in Paragraph 11b of

the NPPF or our strong protections for the Green Belt. It is for local authorities to determine precisely

how many homes to plan for and where those homes most appropriately located. In doing this they

should take into account their local circumstances and constraints.”

Dorset is a very special county, as comments in the Introduction of the plan concede, with many

areas precluded from development and an economy in which tourism plays a large part. There is thus

a need to protect landscapes, habitats, heritage and wildlife; and the current plan threatens all this with

urbanization of significant areas. What is needed is a robust defense of our smaller housing needs

(probably around 20,000, as suggested by other assessments such as the Dorset CPRE, distributed to

where needed) and an equally robust vision of a low carbon Dorset, a beacon of sustainable

agriculture, fisheries, industry, transport and tourism. The current plan is really “business as usual” with

marginal concessions to the C&EE.

Part C: Sites for housing and employment

Complete one part C form for every site you wish to make a comment on.

Part D of this form gives an opportunity to comment in more detail on the

additional site options at Alderholt, Gillingham and Wool.

Which site are you

referring to? Wool

Do you agree with the allocation of this site?

Tick (or mark with Y) as applicable

Agree Agree subject to changes Disagree X

Is there anything not covered within the policy that should be considered in relation to the site?

Wool despite being outside the existing AONB is in fact an area rich in biodiversity (over 3,000 species)

as evidence submitted to PLP enquiry detailed. The classification AONB is largely a landscape one,

were it a biodiversity index Wool would be included. The parish at present contains an SPA, an SSSI

(the River Frome winds through the parish), 9 SNCIs and a LNR and 13 Ancient Woodlands.

The developments planned are totally out of scale with the existing village, are replacing organic

farming land and threaten the River Frome catchment with increased pollution and drainage. There is

no quantity of existing employment opportunities and the DIP has as yet failed to generate the growth

anticipated. Most of those taking up residence would thus be adding to the commuting load on the A352

and A351 which is already an issue particularly during the now extensive holiday ‘seasons’.

East Dorset has the highest number of workers commuting by car or van – 79.5%. Our roads are

frequently congested and we oppose adding to the quantity of carbon emissions.

Are there any community infrastructure needs within the area that should be considered?

I believe the existing sewage works serving Wool is at capacity and thus further development without

additional provision threatens the RAMSAR sites of the Frome Valley and Poole Harbour.

There is a problem with the intersection of a railway and a major road. The former while in theory

providing commuting capacity is actually under used. Meanwhile it disrupts the flow of the main road

leading to considerable congestion at peak periods and tourist seasons. Unless there is a major rethink

and investment in public transport, the provision of a railway bridge with underpass to replace the

existing crossing or the construction of a bypass all beyond the budgets of Council or developers this

problem will not be solved.

The existing school and surgery are not adequate to cope with a large influx of people.

Part D: Areas where there are different options for growth

At Alderholt, Gillingham and Wool there are various options for growth. Please use this section of the form

to comment on those various options.

Alderholt

What level of small scale growth and major expansion should take place at Alderholt?

If Alderholt was to be identified for significant expansion, what improvements would be needed to improve the self-containment of the settlement?

Are there any factors that may inhibit the deliverability of significant expansion of Alderholt?

Gillingham – Land to the west of Peacemarsh

The Gillingham Southern Extension will deliver growth for the town over the coming years. Further land has been identified to the west of Peacemarsh which could meet the longer term needs of the area however it may impact on the delivery of other sites at the town. Should this site be allocated in this plan?

Yes No

Any comments?

Wool – Land south of Hillside Road

Do you think that this site should be allocated in addition to the sites proposed to the west of the village?

Yes No x

Any comments?

Part E: Specific discussion points

The following questions relate to specific issues where the Council are seeking focused responses and

therefore are asking targeted questions. This will help the Council to progress the plan reflecting the

comments received on these issues.

Vision and Strategic Priorities

Do you have any comments on the Vision and Strategic Priorities?

Any comments?

.We are concerned for the unique environment of this area of Dorset by the proposal of so much construction.

The plan talks of land being available for 39000 dwellings so that unmet needs from neighbouring authorities

can be met. It is important that this 'unmet' need is quantified. In Dorset Council area there were (April 2020)

over 4000 empty houses and a further 5200 in the BCP area. It would be good to see if and how these could

be brought into use.

The plan speaks of the creation of 21000 new jobs and 30000 New Homes over its lifetime. It is less clear

where these jobs might come from. Employers already note a lack of local young recruits as young people

are forced out of the area by high house prices and low salaries.

Specifically we fear that much of the building in the next few years would be accomplished with out-dated

technologies.

The new Building Regulations requiring high standards of environmental performance will not come into force

until 2025. Has Dorset Council enquired of building companies what they are prepared to do now in the light

of the current crises?

The Plan acknowledges builders may challenge the demands of new technologies. We would want to see in

the Plan more emphasis on the reduction of carbon emissions and builders’ intentions in this regard. Dorset’s

commitment to carbon neutrality should be made obvious.

We would like to see immediate proposals to adopt green energy technology The Plan holds that sustained

growth must not come at the expense of the environment – we would like to see how Dorset Council is

preparing to achieve this balance.

The Plan has a heavy focus on building despite the potential cost to the climate and

environmental crises. Will Dorset Council review this goal if the Responses indicate that these construction

targets are not what the people of Dorset need?

It appears this plan was drafted before the Climate and Ecological Emergency was declared by DC.

Over all it receives little attention in the plan outside of the Environment Section where the good words are

largely undermined by the planned actions in the Development Sections.

Spatial Strategy / Settlement Hierarchy

Do the boundaries of the four functional areas reflect how the area’s housing markets and economy function?

Yes X No

Is the distribution of housing between and within the functional areas appropriate?

Yes No X

Do you agree with the proposed hierarchy of settlements?

Yes No X

Do you agree that there is a need to amend the green belt to enable development?

Yes No X

How could the strategy/policy be amended to reflect your concerns?

If the housing numbers were reduced to the actual need then they could be dispersed amongst areas

where Neighbourhood Plans would indicate suitable numbers and location. Any subsequent shortfall could

be addressed by construction of new communities where infrastructure could be created as needed, and

climate and environmental concerns given adequate consideration. The suggestion that there is a need to

release land from the ‘green belt’ is thus strongly refuted.

There is also a focus on large developments adjacent to existing towns or large villages. This ignores the

needs of smaller villages, frequently noted in their Neighbourhood Plans, which need housing to provide for

local ‘low cost’ housing needs and to maintain their existing infrastructure and services.

A much greater emphasis needs to be placed on brownfield sites providing accommodation, repurposing

redundant retail space and creating employment and accommodation within the towns.

Residents increasingly do not want to have to rely on their own transport to meet the needs of everyday living.

All too many new developments are being undertaken that appear to be 'stuck out on a limb' without the

supporting infrastructure or sense of community.

Neighbourhood Plans

Do you have any comments on the approach to establishing housing targets for neighbourhood Plans?

Any comments?

Neighbourhood Plans should be the basis of development rather than regarded as subordinate

to the Local Plan and in receipt of its decrees.

Neighbourhood Plans were prepared in the belief that all subsequent planning applications would have to

conform to them Now we learn they are to “sit alongside “the Local Plan. We note that Neighbourhood Plans

cannot offer to build fewer houses than the Local Plan requires. More weight needs to be given to carefully

thought out conclusions, knowledge and opinions contained in Neighbourhood Plans as against the proposal

in the Local Plan to build in excess of need.

Housing Mix

Do you agree that major residential development sites should provide at least 20% of the homes as accessible and adaptable homes to meet the needs of the elderly and less mobile?

Yes No X

Any comments?

The figure of 20 % seems high. The Neighbourhood plan would be a better indicator of the local requirement.

A major residential development should consult the local Public Health Officer to establish the needs of the

less able in the neighbourhood rather than adopt an arbitrary figure.

Affordable housing (proposals to be refined through detailed viability testing)

Do you agree that affordable housing should be delivered by developments at different rates across Dorset?

Yes No X

Do you agree with the suggested tenure split?

Yes No X

Any comments?

There is inadequate vision within the plan to address the need for social and genuinely affordable housing.

The Government’s definition of affordable at 80% of market rate does not make housing affordable with the

low incomes in the county where the average house price is 10 – 14 times the average annual income. I

shall use the term ‘low cost’ housing, to rent or buy, to describe the genuinely affordable housing needed by

many local individuals and families.

Reliance on developer-led and market-led provision is highly unlikely, in fact many planning experts would

maintain impossible, to supply low cost housing. Without adequate planning controls developers will

promise too little low cost housing and probably renege on those planned claiming they make the

development financially ‘unviable’. Only the imposition of planning controls will force down the price of land

sufficiently for any developer to provide sufficient ‘low cost’ housing. Developers should not be allowed to

appeal against supply of affordable housing on ‘viability grounds’ which essentially means they paid too

much for the land. If the developer cannot supply as promised on acquiring planning consent then the

consent should be withdrawn. This stance would ensure developers pay realistic sums for the land.

Other planning controls are needed to ensure that developments are constructed appropriately to have low

carbon construction and zero carbon operation.

Consideration should be given to building ‘low cost’ housing on Council owned land and to persuading

landowners to provide lower cost land at certain sites to provide for local needs.

Possibly the only concessions to this should be allocations of land adjacent to existing settlements

dedicated to providing social and genuinely affordable housing that the current plan with its reliance on

developer-led, market-led housing will simply not provide. The current plan will, ironically with all the housing

allocations, fail to provide the housing most needed in the county. We will have many more houses bought

by those retiring into the area, commuting from the area, acquiring second homes and investing to let and

yet still leave many families living in inadequate accommodation with its raft of associated costs in health,

support, education and with no reduction in carbon emissions.

It would seem to be an issue that could only be resolved by the supply of Council/Community Housing with

rents that take into account the local populations circumstances. A percentage of Market Rate would not

help a lot of people and is a relatively blunt instrument to strike the right balance. Furthermore, in order to

maintain the supply it would not seem sensible to allow 'right to buy ' schemes despite their attraction.

.

Affordable homes are consistently much smaller and built to a lower standard than other parts of the

development. This policy should require affordable housing to be built to the same type, size and mix as

the remainder of the site.

Housing with care provision

Do you agree that specialist purpose built accommodation built as Extra Care should Yes x No

provide affordable housing?

Are there any practical limitations to this approach?

Yes No

Are there other approaches that could be taken to deliver care for those who cannot afford to pay market rates?

Yes x No

Any comments?

Again planning controls on provision ensure that land can be acquired at a price low enough to enable a

developer to provide suitable ‘low cost’ accommodation.

Second homes

What approach do you think the Council should explore to address the pockets of high second home ownership?

Any comments?

This issue is a challenge but one which Neighbourhood Plans have challenged successfully for new builds

in Cornwall and Devon. A policy of ‘Rural Exception Sites’ dedicated to providing only ‘low cost’ housing

would accommodation for local families in areas of high demand for second homes.

Second homes have the negative effects on an area of inflating house prices and creating ‘ghost villages’

where a significant proportion of the houses are not lived in for substantial periods of the year having a

negative effect on the community.

We are concerned about the trend for more second homes in Purbeck. Their occupancy is amongst the

highest in Dorset. We would want all newbuilds to be available only to those who work locally or will have this

as their principal residence- qualifications to be protected by covenant. In winter some villages show few lights

- we want to see a return to viable vibrant communities.

For existing dwellings ideally they should only be sold on as Principal Residences. A difficult area as one

wouldn't want to preclude buy to let - which may meet a housing need, nor deprive homeowners of holiday

let income.

Gypsies, Travellers, Travelling Showpeople

Do you have any comments on the proposed site allocations for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling

showpeople?

Any comments?

The number of sites seems excessive.

Self build housing

Do you think the council should identify sites for self / custom build housing?

Yes No

Can you suggest any additional sites which could be allocated for this purpose?

Yes No

Any comments?

Economy

Should any sites be added or removed from the list of Key Employment Sites in Appendix 6?

Yes No

Any comments?

The 'Key' to these sites being 'Key' is to provide investment/incentives to attract appropriate businesses to

create the necessary employment.

There is an assumption that economic growth will come from existing and expanded ‘Employment Sites’.

This is a somewhat 20th century thinking. Employment now is becoming far more diverse being based at

home or in small units associated with the needed agricultural diversification.

This then tends to skew housing making it adjacent to planned employment expansion without any genuine

indication that such expansion will be realized.

We are concerned about the struggles of town centres. We want to see proposals regarding the increasing

number of commercial buildings and shops that stand empty over long periods- these are potentially windfall

or brownfield sites .Market forces have brought increasing numbers of estate agents and charity shops to our

High Streets but this is a poor fit with the needs of the community. We will not revive the economy simply by

selling our houses to one another or our clothes.

We need ventures developing all aspects of green energy. Post Covid, more people will want to work from

home – more data will be needed about this new economy.

Town centre hierarchy

Do you agree with the classification of the centres in the proposed hierarchy? Yes No

Are there any additional centres that should be included? Yes No

Any comments?

Hot food takeaway

Should the council look to restrict hot food takeaways around areas where children and young people congregate?

Yes No

Any comments?

If one is considering areas around schools restriction is indicated.

However, social congregations of young people are a different consideration and takeaway outlets are often

in areas where adults and families might also congregate. Just as important are the considerations of waste,

low carbon packaging, recyclable packaging and the collection of these items. Should they be the

responsibility of the vendor?

Electric vehicle charging points

The plan requires the provision of the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging on development sites. Do you agree with this proposal?

Yes x No

Any comments?

The roll out of electric vehicles requires adequate charging points in public areas as well as on new

developments. Consideration should be given to the payment arrangements for the service – the current

plethora of companies and particular payment methods makes moving around a challenge of planning when

compared to refueling by credit card at carbon fuel centres.

Electric cars are not carbon or materials free in production or maintenance. Personal transport needs to be

provided more readily by public transport and active transport. Greater provision for these is also a priority.

Wind turbines

The locations identified as opportunities for larger scale wind developments are shown on Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6. Do you support the principle of allocating any of the areas for wind turbines?

Yes x No

Are there any planning issues that would need to be resolved to enable community backing to be secured?

Yes x No

Any comments?

The need for decarbonizing Dorset’s energy requirements cannot be met only by onshore wind turbines or

PV arrays. Both can play a part but land is much needed in Dorset for farming, amenity, health & wellbeing,

landscape, biodiversity and the important tourism industry. Priority thus needs to be also given to reducing

energy consumption by improving buildings, reducing travel, decarbonising agriculture etc.

The plan for substantial offshore wind generation off the coast of Dorset and BCP areas needs to be

revisited now the Climate Emergency has been more widely recognized. It could generate the quantities of

energy required. Llandudno and Brighton both have attractive off-shore wind farms.

Broadband

The plan requires the provision of full fibre broadband connections to each home on major development sites. Do you agree with this proposal?

Yes x No

Any comments?

Climate change

What else could the local plan do to mitigate climate change and help people adapt to its effects?

Any comments?

Rather than being the last section for comment, arguably it should be the first. We do not find the proposed

plan consistent with DC’s declared Climate & Environmental Emergency. It needs to have it at the forefront

of its revised Local Plan. The current offering merely makes vague statements and will effect little change in

the activities or behavior of its citizens or those who act on the Dorset environment. It really is a document

supporting ‘business as usual’ with a just a few concessions to the Council’s own CEE Strategy.

The carbon footprint of the developments and associated consumption and travel indicated by the plan

grossly outweigh any planned reductions. The review of NPPF guidelines and Building Regulations needs to

be undertaken with the Climate and Ecological Emergency leading the changes. Until this happens no

further development should acquire planning permission and, if possible, current permissions reviewed.

Thank you for your comments

About You

We collect diversity information, not only to ensure any changes do not unfairly impact on specific sectors

of the community, but also to try to make sure our consultation response comes from a representative

sample of local residents. We would appreciate if you can complete the following details if you are

responding as an individual.

Which age group do you belong to?

Under 18 18 - 24 25 - 34

Prefer not to say 35 - 44

What best describes your gender?

Female

Prefer not to say Non-binary

The Equality Act 2010 describes a person as disabled if they have a longstanding physical or mental

condition that has lasted, or is likely to last 12 months; and this condition has a substantial adverse effect

on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. People with some conditions (cancer, multiple

sclerosis and HIV/AIDS for example) are considered to be disabled from the point that they are

diagnosed.

Do you consider yourself to be disabled as set out in the Equality Act 2010?

Yes No Prefer not to say

If yes, please tell us which type of impairment applies to you. You may have more than one type of

impairment, so please select all the impairments that apply to you

Please specify your ethnic group?

White British

White Irish

Gypsy/Irish Traveller

Any other White background

45 - 54 55 - 64 65 or over

Male

I use another term

Learning disability /

difficulty

Physical disability

Long-standing illness or health condition Mental health condition

Sensory impairment (hearing, Sight or both) Prefer not to say

Other (please specify)

Asian/Asian British - Bangladeshi

Asian/Asian British - Chinese

Asian/Asian British - Indian

Asian/Asian British - Pakistani

Any other Asian background

Black/Black British - African

Black/Black British - Caribbean

Any other Black background

Mixed ethnic background - White and Asian

Mixed ethnic background - White and Black African

Mixed ethnic background - White and Black Caribbean

Any other mixed background

Prefer not to say

Any other ethnic group (please specify)

What best describes your sexual orientation?

Bi Gay/lesbian

I use another term (please

describe)

Prefer not to say

What best describes your religion/belief?

Buddhist Christian

Hindu Muslim

Sikh No Religion

Other (please describe)

Prefer not to say

Heterosexual/Straight

Privacy statement

This planning consultation collects your personal data to ensure fair responses to the Local Plan. Your data will be

held according to our data protection policy available at:

www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/your-council/about-your-council/data-protection/service-privacy-notices/planning-

policy.aspx